Musar for Bava Metzia 63:22

אמר רבא

and a positive command cannot supersede [combined] positive and negative commands! — It is necessary. I might think, Since the honour due to parents is equated to that due to the Omnipresent, for it is said, Honour thy father and thy mother;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 12. ');">¹⁸</span> whilst elsewhere it is said: Honour the Lord with thy substance;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. III. 9: the fact that the same language is used of both shews that they are likened to each other. ');">¹⁹</span> therefore he must obey him. Hence we are informed that he must not obey him. THERE IS A BIBLICAL PRECEPT TO UNLOAD, BUT NOT TO LOAD. What is meant by — 'BUT NOT TO LOAD'? Shall we say, not to load at all: wherein does unloading differ, because it is written, <i>Thou shalt surely help him</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 5. ');">²⁰</span> Yet in respect to loading, too, it is said, <i>thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 4. ');">²¹</span> But [it means this:] It is a Biblical obligation to unload without remuneration, but not to load without payment, save only for remuneration. R. Simeon said: To load too without payment. We have [thus] learnt here what our Rabbis taught: Unloading [must be done] without pay; unloading, for pay. R. Simeon said: Both without payment. What is the reason of the Rabbis? — For should you think it is as R. Simeon: let Scripture state loading, and unloading becomes unnecessary; for I would reason: If one is bound to load, though no suffering of dumb animals nor financial loss is involved;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 193. ');">²²</span> how much more so unloading, seeing that both suffering of dumb animals and financial loss are involved!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the animal falls under its burden and help is needed to unload it. ');">²³</span> Then for what purpose is it written? To teach you that unloading must be performed without payment, but loading only for payment. And what is R. Simeon's reason? — Because the verses are not explicit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 194, n. 3. ');">²⁴</span> And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How do they rebut this argument? ');">²⁵</span> — Why [say,] The verses are not explicit? Here it is written, [<i>If thou see the ass&nbsp;…] lying under his burden</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII. 5: this certainly implies that the burden is still upon it, and help is required for unloading. ');">²⁶</span> whilst there it is said, [Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox] fall down by the way, which implies, both they and their burdens are cast on the road.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And help is required to reload them. ');">²⁷</span> And R. Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can he maintain that the verses are not explicit? ');">²⁸</span> — 'Fall down by the way' implies they themselves [the animals], their load being still upon them. Raba said:

Mesilat Yesharim